A court must consider the merits of an application regardless of incorrect legal citations, allowing for corrections as necessary.

JUDGMENT

The above original petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 order and seeking an order to release the pension book of the deceased husband of the petitioner, which is listed as item Nos.7 and 8 of Ext.P2 inventory list prepared by the Advocate commissioner.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in OS No.195/2024 on the file of the 1st Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, a suit for mandatory injunction to put the plaintiff in possession of the plaint schedule flat and for consequential reliefs. An advocate commissioner was appointed for preparing an inventory in the plaint schedule flat and the same was allowed. The contention of the petitioner that late P.Ashokan is her husband and father of the 2nd respondent/2nd plaintiff was a retired Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs Perumbavoor Range, who died on 2.1.2024 due to Cardiac arrest. He was superannuated in the year 2013 and the pension payment order book of the pensioner/petitioner's husband bearing No.514081300042 and the retirement submission of pension paper which are numbered as item Nos.7 and 8 in the inventory list prepared by the advocate commissioner is required by the petitioner for submitting the same before the Central Excise and Customs Department in order to get family pension since she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased. Thereupon, Ext.P3 application was filed as IA No.7 of 2024 before the Munsiff Court-II, Ernakulam for release of the pension book of her husband. The 1st respondent did not filed an objection to the said interlocutory application. The trial court dismissed Ext.P3 application as per Ext.P4. Petitioner submits that going by Ext.P6, legal heirship certificate, petitioner and the 2nd respondent are the legal heirs of the deceased P.Ashokan. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court went wrong in issuing Ext.P4 order rejecting the request of the petitioner since the petitioner is the only person legally entitled to receive the family pension of the deceased P.Ashokan. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons stated in Ext.P4 for rejecting the request of the petitioner that the petition is filed only under Section 151 of the CPC and is not a petition seeking mandatory injunction and that prayer of the petitioner could be allowed only after all materials showing the entitlement of the petitioner for the reliefs sought is properly brought in record and adjudicated, is without any basis. It is settled law that quoting the wrong provision of law in an application will not prevent the court from deciding the interlocutory application on merits treating the said application as one seeking mandatory injunction. Petitioner submits that she is aged 65 years old and is made to run pillar to post to get sanctioned her family pension.

3. Notice was issued to the respondents by special messenger, which was duly received by the 2nd respondent through his wife but when messenger attempted to serve notice on the 1st respondent, the messenger was not allowed to enter the flat and was not ready to accept the notice and therefore, the notice has been returned unserved. The messenger has submitted a report in this regard. Therefore, I am of the view that there is due notice to the respondents in this proceedings.

4. The request made in Ext.P3 is seeking a direction to the respondents to release the pension payment book bearing No. 514081300042 of P.Ashokan, who died on 2.1.2024 and retirement submission of pension paper before the Central Excise and Customs for obtaining family pension. It is an admitted case that those documents are part of Ext.P2 inventory commission which has been marked as item Nos.7 and 8. A perusal of Ext.P5 communication from the Central Excise Department would reveal that a communication for grant of family pension was sent to the petitioner and going by Ext.P6 petitioner and the 2nd respondent, who are plaintiffs in the suit are the legal heirs of deceased P.Ashokan.

5. It is s